Archives For August 2014

When my daughter brought this stamp to me earlier today, I couldn’t shake these four words.

The. Stamp. Is. Real.

Yesterday she was blessed with a collection of stamps from my step-father, who is himself an avid stamp collector. He seemed pretty keen to pass down some decent stamps to her from his own collection.

I’d never seen this stamp before and so I was curious about it.

Despite the obvious absence of the word ‘created’, the theological statement printed on it still speaks volumes. I also think that the absence of the word ‘created’ only intensifies the inference of meaning that the image projects.

It doesn’t point to some idea of a ‘moral’ golden era; or an epoch of ignorance and anxiety about scientific contributions to how we understand the world around us. With the exemption of the unity (not necessarily a unity free of conflict) and freedom that Christianity has undergirded in the West for centuries, it’s debatable about whether any such eras existed anyway.

The statement on the stamp is simple.

Whether we consider creation to be word-instant or evolution-distant, it doesn’t dampen the significance of ‘In the beginning God…’

It may be too bold to suggest it, but there is a possible interchange, although not without some degree of caution, between Darwin’s ‘Power of Selection’ and the ‘Power of the Holy Spirit’, which would potentially still allow room for Darwin’s original observations, whilst not endorsing natural theology {more my Pentecostal tendencies perhaps…? Either way, don’t shoot me on this, it’s a work in progress. I’ll let you know where I land}.

What the image does do is stamp onto us a point of reference outside ourselves; a point of being where we are raised beyond our ability to raise ourselves. Freely raised by God towards the goal (telos) of fellowship with Him.

When we say ‘the stamp is real’ we are saying in a round about way that something like righteousness or goodness cannot easily be dismissed as a social construct.

For this reason:goodness resides outside humanity and is only present in humanity because of God’s merciful “yes” and just “no” to us. The change in our being presupposes the power to change our being and it rests on a dynamic summons to genuine freedom. It is sealed on our hearts, in our minds and upon our souls by the Holy Spirit (Eph.4:30).

It’s not, but it might seem like a cheap pun to say that this stamp reminds us of God’s stamp-of-approval; his “Yes” in Christ as the ‘beginning’ of restoration for all creation. His words breathing life into dust – whispering purpose to us. His love grounding you and me in the person of Jesus Christ, worked out in our lives through the promise and power of the Holy Spirit (2. Peter.1:3-7).

For:

‘In Christ you were chosen before the foundation of the world.

In him you have redemption.

In him you have forgiveness.

In him you have wisdom and insight.

In him we are united.

In him we have obtained an inheritance.

In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance..’

Well, the basic definition is this: a haiku amounts to three short unconventional English sentences that don’t rhyme, or have a title, but make up an overall statement about something.

Originating in Japan, haikus traditionally followed a structure based on syllables of a 5-7-5 convention.

However, other than for haiku purists, today this convention is viewed as a guide. This is mainly due to the fact that syllables in the Japanese language do not exactly match those of the English language.

The British Society for Haiku notes:

‘English and Japanese ideas differ considerably about what constitutes a syllable (onion, for example, would count as 4 syllables in Japanese). To preserve the spirit, feeling and brevity of haiku, writers in English often find that a form shorter than 17 syllables is desirable (around about 12). No ‘rules’ are broken by doing this, for the great master of Japanese haiku, Basho, himself, advised poets to judge haiku by how they sounded even if this meant ignoring a strict syllable count. In English haiku the middle line of three (written horizontally) is usually a little longer than the other two, irrespective of how many syllables are used.’[i]

I should declare this right from the start, I am not a haiku expert. In all honesty I’d rate my fumbling around with it as amateurish at best.

Still, that means more practice and when it comes to haiku I’m more than happy to lay out some serious downtime mucking around with it. There’s something about the simplicity of haiku that permits a definitive break from the formal thought of academia.

There is a clarity here that I find refreshing, even if I don’t quite have the hang of it yet.

Stardom shipwrecked
On a sea of likes, comments and shares, a ship jettisons its moral compass
Love is betrayed

Feel free to comment and/or add your own.

If you’re interested there is an activity sheet provided for by the British Haiku Society with information and examples for lessons. I am yet to use it with our homeschoolers, but it is on da to do list.

Like this:

The culturally engrained, number one bad habit in the West is to measure most things or people by their inherent economic value.

Now, I’m all for compassionate commerce and moving forward financially, but it seems to me that measuring the worth of someone through their economic efficiency or portfolio only encourages the deterioration of the work force through the loss of respect for a person’s true worth.

My point is that depths of my pockets are not indicators of my value, success, spirituality or holiness.

They may reflect the brokenness I come out of, or good/bad decisions I may have made, but in the end they do not demonstrate who I am or illustrate what I am worth.

Money, property, friends and status can all be lost; whereas knowledge, good character, faith, wisdom and understanding cannot be, at least not unless it is first surrendered or compromised.

The more we teach our homeschoolers the more I see that we are passing them an inheritance like no other.(In fact, this applies to any parent engaged in the responsible education of their children)

We are equipping them with an investment that no man, woman or ideology cannot easily take from them.

There is something of a true freedom expressed in this journey, freedom that is handed down at a cost, but one with returns that will far outlive (and outweigh) the initial investment.

Here are some of our more recent reflections taken during our morning discussions about ‘scripture, life and the world around us’.

‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil. It will be healing to your flesh and refreshment to your bones’ (Proverbs 3:5-8, ESV)

‘And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God us with humanity. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes…’ (Rev.21:3-4, ESV)

Writing seven years after the date of the excerpt below, Vernon Kellogg in an article for ‘The Atlantic’, wrote a response to William Jennings Bryan’s stand against evolution. Something made famous by The Scopes Trial in 1925.

Kellogg’s 1924 essay was entitled ‘The Modern View of Evolution‘. In it Kellogg, a biologist, writes from a position that understands the importance of making a distinction between ‘Social Darwinism’ and ‘Darwinian Evolutionary Theory’. For an excellent summary of Bryan’s views after the Scopes Trial was closed, I recommend checking out ‘The Last Message of William Jennings Bryan’.

Bryan points to the same distinction in his concerns about evolutionary theory. However his overall argument becomes generalised, which overshadows his points. In my view, outside this, his closing statement is outstanding.

The excerpt below is from Kellogg’s assessment of the impact of scientism, something that pushed him beyond pacifism. As a result he became an advocate for the just resistance against such views. Scientism is defined as an ‘exaggerated trust in the efficacy of science‘ (Merriam-Webster).

Although I am not yet in complete agreement with the narrator when he suggests that Darwin later succumbed to Social Darwinism/Scientific Socialism.The video attached is legit and worth watching.

The historical value here is found in its contemporary relevance as an indictment against scientism and totalitarianism.

Theology remains a necessary critique (Barth) and this seems to back that up.

To Whom It May Concern,

‘One by one any German would give up, in all matters in which he acted as a part of the German administration, all of the thinking, all of the feeling, all of the conscience which might be characteristic of him as an individual, a free man, a separate soul made sacred by the touch of the Creator.

And he did this to accept the control and standards of an impersonal, intangible, inhuman, great cold fabric made of logic and casuistry and utter, utter cruelty, called the State — or often, for purposes of deception, the Fatherland.

There is fatherland in Germany, but it is not the German State. It is German soil and German ancestry, but not the horrible, depersonalized, super-organic state machine, built and managed by a few ego-maniacs of incredible selfishness and of utter callousness to the sufferings, bodily and mental, of their own as well as any other people in their range of contact.

But this machine is a Frankenstein that will turn on its own creators and work their destruction, together with its own.

Such sacrifice and degradation of human personality as national control by such a machine requires, can have no permanence in a world moving certainly, even if hesitatingly and deviously, toward individualism and the recognition of personal values…

…Well, I say it dispassionately but with conviction: if I understand theirs, it is a point of view that will never allow any land or people controlled by it to exist peacefully by the side of a people governed by our point of view.

For their point of view does not permit of a live-and-let-live kind of carrying on. It is a point of view that justifies itself by a whole-hearted acceptance of the worst of Neo (social) Darwinism, the omnipotence of natural selection applied rigorously to human life and society and culture.

The creed of the All-macht (omnipotent power) of natural selection based on violent and fatal competitive struggle is the gospel of the German intellectuals; all else is illusion and anathema.

The assumption among them is that the Germans are the chosen race (the Ubermensch), and German social and political organisation the chosen type of human community life, and you have a wall of logic and conviction that you can break your head against but can never shatter – by headwork.You long for the muscles of Samson…

Here the pale ascetic intellectual and the burly, red-faced butcher meet on common ground here. And they wonder why the world comes together to resist this philosophy – and this butcher- to the death!

Any people who have dedicated itself to the philosophy and practice of war as a means of human advancement is put into a position of impotence to indulge its belief at will.

My conviction is that Germany is such a people, and that it can be put to this position only by the result of war itself. It knows no other argument and it will accept no other decision[i]. ’

Vernon Kellogg, 1917

(Biologist and Director of The Commission for the relief of Belgium 1915-1916)

Sources:

[i] Kellogg, V.L. 1917 Headquarters Nights: A Record of Conversations and Experiences at the Headquarters of the German Army in France and Belgium (Annotated) (Loc. 459-460). Rueggisberg Press. 2010 Kindle Ed.

Once the prospect of achieving the goal drifts further, and further away the optimism that accompanied the original objective wanes.

Indecision steps in, as that which seemed like a good idea at the time slowly turns into something along the lines of:

“Oops…maybe I set the bar a little higher on this than I should have.”

In addition, there’s only so much one can read in the priceless minutes that frees us to tune out and read something of value each week.

Still, I am convinced reading lists serve a purpose. So, I am taking a step back and reprioritising what still sits on the shelf, or in my ebook libraries.

Right now I’m in between finishing off my final post on Barth’s C.D I/II and finishing the book ‘Theology after Darwin’, which is turning out to be worth the effort.

For why I was unable to get to read most on my list from January (excluding Barth’s Dogmatics), I’m putting it down to my eagerness to read Barth’s Dogmatics. Reading Barth is not something one can just breeze through – it’s just that darn good!

So here’s what I’ve achieved and would like to achieve in the next six months.

Achieved:

Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking Susan Cain, 2012

Augustine and the Limits of Politics, Jean Bethke Elshtain, 1995

The Children of Men, P.D. James 1992

The kindergarden of Eden, Evan Sayet 2012

Church Dogmatics I/II, Karl Barth

The Origin of Species, 1859 Charles Darwin {not originally on the list }

The Rebel, 1951 Albert Camus {not originally on the list}

Current list (Reprioritized)

The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race – Willie James Jennings

Up from Slavery – Booker T Washington (Homeschool reader)

The Servile State – Hilaire Belloc

The Work of the Chaplain – Naomi K. Paget & Janet R. McCormack

Good Call: Reflections on Faith, Family and Fowl – Jase Robertson

Church Dogmatics II/I The Doctrine of God – Karl Barth, (priority text – goal is to read all of them eventually)

Karl Barth’s Table Talk – John.D Godsey

Preaching in Hilter’s Shadow, Dean G. Stroud

Legalizing Misandry, Paul Nathanson & Katherine Young 2006

Between past and present, Hannah Arendt 1954

I intend to add and read-as-I-go from the reading list posted in January.

The ones unread will be put in a holding pattern for now.

There are good grounds for doing this. One key reason though, is that I am now teaching homeschool three days a week.

Share:

Like this:

I’ve just finished reading ‘The Origin of the Species’. It was surprising to find almost ZERO evidence of any cultural Christian influences, which seems to be a key theme found amongst some Darwinians who have suggested that this hindered his original work.

There are, however, strong patterns throughout the book which indicate a “disposition”, which suggests among other things, that Darwin was a political product of Imperialist expansionism; a son from the age in which and whence forth, he therefore thus “descended”…

On another, slightly satirical note, but still related to that of Darwin, we find something that might suggest how the “principle of selection” explains the friendly-sometimes-comedic rivalry between Australia and New Zealand.

In which case, Charles Darwin might have been way ahead of his time:

‘New Zealand and New Caledonia (France)[i] should be considered an accessory of Australia’

‘Although New Zealand is here spoken of as an Oceanic island, it is in some degree doubtful whether it should be so ranked; it is of large size, and is not separated from Australia by a profoundly deep-sea; from its geological character and the direction of its mountain-ranges, the Rev. W.B. Clarke has lately maintained that this island , as well as New Caledonia, should be considered as appurtenances of Australia’[ii]

All that said, I did enjoy reading it. I’ll post something deeper about it once I’ve have made time to process and properly order some of my notes.

Even though I am conscious of my bias and limitations with this, I don’t think it is reading history backwards to say that the language Darwin uses is highly political.

It does show that extremely careful Darwin was with his choice of words, but it doesn’t show he did it in order to be sensitive to an overly intolerant and ignorant Christian majority. Instead, the text seems to fall in line with the political narrative of his day.

Like an abstract artist, I could be coloring outside the lines here, but from my initial reading ‘The Origin of the Species’, as well as being an empirical list of theory and suggested evidence to match, reads like a scientific justification for the political policies of the historical context, for and from which it was written.

It is too early for me to settle on this insight conclusively. Although I can see how writers such as Lutheran Gene Veith and Tom Wright (among others) have concluded that Darwinist thought was one of the key progenitors[iii], or ‘great prophets of Modernism’[iv] and therefore a justification for some of the most violent and barbaric events carried out throughout the 20th Century.

In the course of deciding how best to follow-up the topic from a theological perspective, I’ve added the Paternoster 2009 publication: ‘Theology after Darwin’, edited by Michael S. Northcottand R.J Berry to my reading list.

The book is a compilation of essays that no doubt will present itself as a challenge to read.

Like this:

Politics and religion aside, the media is right to tag Williams as a comic genius. Through his unique gifts Williams managed to give the world, not only a smile, but some of the best acting in cinematic history.